On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 2:32 PM Jonathan Wakely via SG10 < [email protected]> wrote:
> Resending from the right email account.... > > >> We looked at >> https://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21summer2020/LibraryWorkingGroup/d0943r6.html >> in the LWG telecon today. It proposes to add a __cpp_lib_atomic_compat >> macro. >> >> It was pointed out that "compat" is a bit generic and could mean >> different things in different contexts. Should we instead name the macro >> after the header? I think that's our policy when there's no reason to do >> otherwise. It's complicated here by the header being <stdatomic.h> and we >> can't have a dot in a macro name. >> >> Should it be __cpp_lib_stdatomic_h then? >> > Do we own <stdatomic.h> to put a macro in there? __cpp_lib_stdatomic_h seems fine. Maybe also __cpp_lib_c_atomic or something to that effect? Barry
-- SG10 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10
